» OLD MESSAGE ARCHIVES «
The Pop Culture Information Society...
Messageboard Archive Index, In The 00s - The Pop Culture Information Society

Welcome to the archived messages from In The 00s. This archive stretches back to 1998 in some instances, and contains a nearly complete record of all the messages posted to inthe00s.com. You will also find an archive of the messages from inthe70s.com, inthe80s.com, inthe90s.com and amiright.com before they were combined to form the inthe00s.com messageboard.

If you are looking for the active messages, please click here. Otherwise, use the links below or on the right hand side of the page to navigate the archives.

Custom Search



Subject: Question for our British friends here...

Written By: 80sRocked on 06/13/03 at 07:13 p.m.

This is not meant in any offense or disrespect to our freinds "across the pond", but I got to ask:



How do you feel about the "Royal Family"?


2 Questions:

1.  Seriously, what purpose do they serve?

and

2.  How much longer will they exist?



Subject: Re: Question for our British friends here...

Written By: boris66au on 06/13/03 at 07:16 p.m.

1: They make us glad we weren't born a royal

2: Until they die?


I suppose they bring alot of tourism to the country, although whether the money they generate outweighs the money they cost i've no idea.

I was sad when the Queen Mother died, i'll be sad when the Queen dies...but for the rest of them I really couldn't care one way or another.

Subject: Re: Question for our British friends here...

Written By: 80sRocked on 06/13/03 at 08:09 p.m.


Quoting:
1: They make us glad we weren't born a royal

2: Until they die?End Quote



thats what I thought.  

So basically what you are saying is that they don't really serve a purpose?  ???

It seems England is one of the very few remaining advanced and prosperous countries in the world that still has a royal family.  And for what?

Basically all we hear about the royal family here in America, is in the tabloids.  To me, it seems like it would be more of a nuicense to have a royal family than anything, at least in the 21st Century.  And yet the people of England never seem to raise any concerns about it.

Subject: Re: Question for our British friends here...

Written By: Goreripper on 06/13/03 at 11:27 p.m.

I'm not from Britain, but I am from Australia which still has the Queen as its nominal head of state. The referendum a few years back which would have paved the way for Australia to become a republic was defeated because the royalist government manipulated the question so the majority would vote against it. This subject has arisen before, though previous to your membership of the boards I think. The question of Britain becoming a republic comes up now and again. Certainly Charles is reluctant to take the throne and William doesn't seem too keen about it either. Nevertheless, like any constitutional change (even Britain's, most of which isn't even written down I believe), it would require a popular vote. One of the main problems with removing the monarchy in Britain is that not only is the Queen head of state, she is also head of the Church.

Not really an answer, I guess, but that might clear a few things up. I'm sure philbo or Taoist or one of our Brit friends could explain things better.  :)

Subject: Re: Question for our British friends here...

Written By: Paul_UK on 06/14/03 at 02:50 a.m.


Quoting:
This is not meant in any offense or disrespect to our freinds "across the pond", but I got to ask:



How do you feel about the "Royal Family"?


2 Questions:

1.  Seriously, what purpose do they serve?

and

2.  How much longer will they exist?



End Quote



No offence taken, 80sRocked - in answer to your questions (from my POV anyway):

1. I often wonder myself! That's easy for me to say, as I'm not a royalist, but the whole royalty malarky is something that is becoming less and less relevant to people in this day and age...

2. Well, there's two possible directions...

a) The whole thing will just continue to shrink as more and more people question its relevance...the UK is more of a multi-cultural and multi-ethnic place today than ever, and a lot of religions within that mix will be the first to question the aspect of a royal family...

b) But on the other hand, our delightful "establishment" is alive and well, and they certainly enjoy a bit of manipulation to keep things as they are...

So perhaps one will cancel the other? No, I'm not sure either...

Hard to even put a figure on it on how long it would go on for, but I would think that in years to come, the royalty thing will be something akin to what they have in Belgium, Holland, Sweden - i.e., a very shrunken-down version of what we've got now...

If there was a referendum tomorrow on whether we should keep 'em or kick 'em out, I think it'd be close - probably 60/40 in favour - precious little chance of that tho' - we're not even being asked whether we want to be screwed further by the EU!

But, suckers that we are, we'll sit and take what's being dished out...!

Anyway, hope that (sort-of) helps...

Subject: Re: Question for our British friends here...

Written By: FussBudgetVanPelt on 06/14/03 at 06:06 a.m.

Aha !  Gore beat me to it !  But I couldn't have worded it that well as I am a political infidel !  ;D

From my perspective, I don't particularly notice them, so therefore it doesn't particularly bother me  :)

Subject: Re: Question for our British friends here...

Written By: Gecko on 06/14/03 at 04:28 p.m.


Quoting:
From my perspective, I don't particularly notice them, so therefore it doesn't particularly bother me  :)
End Quote



It bothers me that Australia is still connected to the royal family - and that they are totally irrelevant to us.  And to top it off, look at the mess our G.G. got into.  What a good representative of the Queen he was ::)

Subject: Re: Question for our British friends here...

Written By: Goreripper on 06/15/03 at 01:46 a.m.


Quoting:


It bothers me that Australia is still connected to the royal family - and that they are totally irrelevant to us.  And to top it off, look at the mess our G.G. got into.  What a good representative of the Queen he was ::)
End Quote



What's worse is that our mighty PM wouldn't fire him.

Subject: Re: Question for our British friends here...

Written By: Gecko on 06/15/03 at 03:03 a.m.


Quoting:
What's worse is that our mighty PM wouldn't fire him.
End Quote



You are so right - it went on for sooooooo long.  Little Johnny should have stepped in and done something from the beginning.

Subject: Re: Question for our British friends here...

Written By: Goreripper on 06/15/03 at 03:16 a.m.

I'll say one thing for John Howard. Once he makes up his mind about something, he sticks to his guns. Everything else about him is a joke.

Subject: Re: Question for our British friends here...

Written By: Bobby on 06/15/03 at 09:12 a.m.

I don't think you will find many younger people in Britain supporting the Royal Family. It is normally the over seventies that take pride in having a queen - I may be wrong but that is what appears.

Ever since punk got in the face of royalty - they have become less of a force.

The Royal family are merely a figurehead. A family that represents a time of pillaging years ago and do precious little apart from visit foreign countries (and Legoland). I'm not too sure whether this comes out of British tax-payers hard earned money.

I never understood why a particular family in Britain should get more money, more privelledges than any other family in Britain - These are my opinions though.



Subject: Re: Question for our British friends here...

Written By: Don_Carlos on 06/15/03 at 03:29 p.m.

While as a Yank, and certainly NOT in favor of any hereditory class ranking, I must say that I think there is an advantage in being able to sperate the "head of state" from the head of government.  For example, I notice that on several threads those of you in the UK have bashed your honorable Prime Minister, Mr Blair.  Has that subjected any of you to charges of being unpatriotic?  Anti Gov't for sure, but not unpatriotic.  We here in the states combine the head of state and the head of Gov't in one person.  The result is, that when I rant on the President - and I have ranted on all of them since I came to political maturity - I run the risk of being called unpatriotic because I am critisizing the head of state, regardless of the idiocy that the head of government is pursuing.  You Brits can say "DOWN WITH THE GOVERNMENT, long live the queen"  and still be considered patriots by most of your peers.  When I say "Mr Bush lies in BIG ways, not just about his sex life (if he has one), I get called unpatriotic, if not treasonous.  Keep your queen as head of state.  As long as she doesn't meddle in politics or policy, she is a protection against the "jingoists" amoung you.

Its also fun to watch them swerm in sexual embrolios - just like Bill had to - and he only got to ... on her dress? - bummer.

Subject: Re: Question for our British friends here...

Written By: Bobby on 06/15/03 at 06:14 p.m.

Don Carlos.

I understand what you are saying, but many people are saying 'down with the queen' as well.

As far as the royals sex-lives go. I don't think I want to know too much about what goes on regardless of how scandal-starved I feel. I think the closest we came to something like that recently is Charles going out with Camilla Parker Bowles  :-X.

I don't think anybody can be protected from 'Jingoists'. If extreme people want to get extreme. They will do so without much, if little provocation.

The other thing is that patriotism in Britain counts if your supporting your team in the football league. From what I see in this country (England), the monarchy and politics are separate from patriotism.

Subject: Re: Question for our British friends here...

Written By: Don_Carlos on 06/15/03 at 07:51 p.m.


Quoting:
Don Carlos.

From what I see in this country (England), the monarchy and politics are separate from patriotism.
End Quote



Exactly my point.  In the states, to attack the pres, is to attack the country.  People don't destingish between "head of state" and "head of Gov't".  Here, they are one in the same.

Subject: Re: Question for our British friends here...

Written By: 80sRocked on 06/15/03 at 08:32 p.m.

Quoting:
When I say "Mr Bush lies in BIG ways, not just about his sex life (if he has one), I get called unpatriotic, if not treasonous.  
End Quote



Don Carlos, perhaps its because you manage to turn every thread into another political rant!

Have you noticed several members have just stopped reading your posts altogether?  I don't blame them, 99.9% of everything you say here is a political rant, whether the thread is political-related or not!

You always manage to get in your little pathetic political slam in at least once in every thread.

Nobody is questioning your patriotism, or your right to say whatever you want to say(that argument didnt work for Marting Sheen and its not working for you).  But when you say the same old thing over and over and over and over and over in places where it has no relevance to the conversation   (and this refers to many many many various threads you have hijacked and made into your political rant, both past and recent), you begin to become known as the crazy old cook that just sits in the corner rocking back and forth rambling on about the "evil" government.

>>> IT GETS OLD!!! <<<<

Subject: Re: Question for our British friends here...

Written By: Davester on 06/15/03 at 09:44 p.m.

  Aw, 80's_Rocked...Does Don Carlos really have to roll out a full-scale indictment of humanity here?

  He knows, as you may know, we're all silly monkeys. That's what I don't get about it. Why is anyone annoyed at the silly monkeys?

  The US ... Manifest Destiny, Three-Fifths Rule, Electoral College (in the modern day), Cold War ... we have a history of being silly monkeys.

  So does Australia, in fact. Symbolic or not, the vote to retain the Queen makes monkeys of the lot of them.

  Admittedly, some monkeys are more harmful than others, but I always wondered about Rep Waxman when he would huff and rage on the U.S. House floor about cigarettes being the #1 cause of air pollution in Los Angeles.

  It's ALL monkey business.

Subject: Re: Question for our British friends here...

Written By: Taoist on 06/16/03 at 06:25 a.m.

My view on the monarchy in the UK, in one word

Embarrassing

The people of the UK are advanced enough to realise that this system of rule is outdated and just plain wrong, so the country has completely replaced this with a parliamentary system leaving the monarch with no real power.
So why do we still retain these people as a reminder of a time when we were more primitive?

Subject: Re: Question for our British friends here...

Written By: 80sRocked on 06/16/03 at 12:31 a.m.


Quoting:
My view on the monarchy in the UK, in one word

Embarrassing
End Quote



Taoist, I applaud your honesty.




Quoting:The people of the UK are advanced enough to realise that this system of rule is outdated and just plain wrong, so the country has completely replaced this with a parliamentary system leaving the monarch with no real power.
So why do we still retain these people as a reminder of a time when we were more primitive?
End Quote



I guess that was my whole point:  UK seems to be attempting to hold on to their past in a strange strange way.

I guess if I were from the UK and had a choice, I would love to boot the Royals out of their palace and make them all work at, say, McDonalds.   :D

Subject: Re: Question for our British friends here...

Written By: bj26 on 06/16/03 at 12:33 a.m.

I think Charles should be king and he has my vote, he'd have been a great king.

Subject: Re: Question for our British friends here...

Written By: 80sRocked on 06/16/03 at 12:42 a.m.

Quoting:
I think Charles should be king and he has my vote, he'd have been a great king.
End Quote



so you would be in favor of continuing this nonsense with the royal family?

And what makes a "great king" anyway?  What role in civilised life would a king(or queen) play?

Subject: Re: Question for our British friends here...

Written By: Don_Carlos on 06/16/03 at 01:14 p.m.


Quoting:


Don Carlos, perhaps its because you manage to turn every thread into another political rant!

Have you noticed several members have just stopped reading your posts altogether?  I don't blame them, 99.9% of everything you say here is a political rant, whether the thread is political-related or not!

You always manage to get in your little pathetic political slam in at least once in every thread.

Nobody is questioning your patriotism, or your right to say whatever you want to say(that argument didnt work for Marting Sheen and its not working for you).  But when you say the same old thing over and over and over and over and over in places where it has no relevance to the conversation   (and this refers to many many many various threads you have hijacked and made into your political rant, both past and recent), you begin to become known as the crazy old cook that just sits in the corner rocking back and forth rambling on about the "evil" government.

>>> IT GETS OLD!!! <<<<


End Quote



All I can say, 80's, is that, first, when dealing with current topics, such as this one, we are dealing with political issues.  If you read my posts on, say Playful Penguins, you will see that they are not political but playful.  But I never see you there.  Second, I never said that government was "evil".  As I tell my students, every human group, ie people acting in concert, practice some form of governance to manage their affairs, formal or informal.  So government is neither good nor evil, just necessary.  But specific  governments, ours and others, commit acts that I think (IMHO) are evil.  Last, I may be a "crazy old cook", but your constant, perpetrual, unending defense of Mr Bush & co. certainly puts you in the same mold.

Subject: Re: Question for our British friends here...

Written By: FOXVOX on 06/16/03 at 07:24 p.m.

Perhaps someone can clarify:

The autocracy of The Russian dynasty ruled under the notion of "divine right".  What is the notion of monarchy?

Subject: Re: Question for our British friends here...

Written By: Taoist on 06/17/03 at 05:18 a.m.


Quoting:
Perhaps someone can clarify:

The autocracy of The Russian dynasty ruled under the notion of "divine right".  What is the notion of monarchy?
End Quote


Monarchy = Rule by one!
The monarchy theoretically rules by divine right but it is based on family (ie the position is inherited)

Subject: Re: Question for our British friends here...

Written By: bj26 on 06/17/03 at 06:24 a.m.

What's the procedure for making one king of England, does the Queen choose him?  Can we send suggestions to the Queen?  Charles should be king, not Harry.

Subject: Re: Question for our British friends here...

Written By: Taoist on 06/17/03 at 07:03 a.m.


Quoting:
What's the procedure for making one king of England, does the Queen choose him?  Can we send suggestions to the Queen?  Charles should be king, not Harry.
End Quote


Birthright!
Charles will be king as he is the eldest son of the monarch.  If he dies before the current Queen, Charles's eldest son will become king.

Subject: Re: Question for our British friends here...

Written By: John_Harvey on 06/17/03 at 02:47 p.m.

Socialism!...

Sorry, 80s. I just couldn't help turning this into another political rant. Calm down. Is it so wrong to enjoy proving the Right wrong? ;D

Kings and Queens? Meh... I don't really care. They can keep them in the name of tradition if they want. They still wear wigs in court and they still change the guards, so I don't really care about a figurehead monarchy.

Primitive? I don't know. It's a non-issue to me.

Subject: Re: Question for our British friends here...

Written By: Don_Carlos on 06/17/03 at 03:30 p.m.

As Hawkeye (of M*A*S*H) put it "Aah England, that wonderful land where any little boy can grow up to be queen".  And to quote Tevia of Fiddler on the Roof, "Its a TRADITION".

John, I agree with you, it's a non-issue, although I do think that the separation of head of state from head of government makes sense.

Subject: Re: Question for our British friends here...

Written By: maddog167 on 06/17/03 at 04:18 p.m.


Quoting:
My view on the monarchy in the UK, in one word

Embarrassing

The people of the UK are advanced enough to realise that this system of rule is outdated and just plain wrong, so the country has completely replaced this with a parliamentary system leaving the monarch with no real power.
So why do we still retain these people as a reminder of a time when we were more primitive?

End Quote



Succinct and to the point Tao, I completely agree.
We had our chance to get rid of them in the Civil War but blew it. Now the Royal Family is an anachronism but the role of the monarch is so ingrained into the fabric of the establishment that it's impossible to see how we could get rid of them, short of a revolution. I can only hope that their privileges are gradually removed over time so we are left with the Holland/Sweden/Spain type of royalty that Paul mentioned.

And you guys in Australia, New Zealand, Canada etc. - just make the break please!! I would be so happy to see you do that. Although I was distraught that England didn't win the 1999 Rugby World Cup, I cheered when John Eales refused to bow to the Queen when accepting the trophy.

Subject: Re: Question for our British friends here...

Written By: 80s_cheerleader on 06/17/03 at 04:49 p.m.


Quoting:
 Charles should be king, not Harry.
End Quote



Wouldn't William be next in line?  Personally my vote goes to him, he's much better looking than Charles ;D

Subject: Re: Question for our British friends here...

Written By: FOXVOX on 06/17/03 at 06:12 p.m.


Quoting:

Monarchy = Rule by one!
The monarchy theoretically rules by divine right but it is based on family (ie the position is inherited)
End Quote



Same for Autocracy, so what's the difference?  

Delusions of 'divine right'. . ?  Inter-familial marriage {presumably to keep the blood 'blue'}. . ?     ::)
They lock people up for sh*t like that in my neck of the woods.   :D

Subject: Re: Question for our British friends here...

Written By: philbo_baggins on 06/18/03 at 07:13 a.m.

By and large I agree with DC - not having an elected head of state means you don't have political bickering (not to mention attempted impeachment over trivia) affecting the country's figurehead.  We've had a monarch for the past half-century who's shown an incredible amount of dedication and duty; personally, I think that either she or Charles make a better figurehead than anybody who has been elected in this country, and pretty much everywhere else in the world.

Sure, Tao, you be embarrassed at us having a monarchy still, but would you really rather have had President Thatcher?

Though, to be honest, I'm not such a fan of democracy, either: more than half the vote was against our current government, and they have a huge majority; more than half the vote went against GWB, and he has pretty much absolute power.  So far, I have voted in four general elections and countless council and county-council elections and have never voted for a candidate who has won - call that representation?  Having said that, at present, democracy is the least worst option - at least in theory you get a chance to get rid of incompetents, though that doesn't always work.

Personally, I'd like to see a system which ensures the following sorts of things:
1. Training for high office: WTF do we assume that politicians with no experience can run departments or even countries?
2. Some kind of certification after 1.  If a candidate was crap in training, why should they be let loose on a country?
3. It should not be possible for TPTB to influence either the intake or the results from the "presidency" training college: rich, powerful families would have as minimal an advantage as possible (ideally none at all, but I want to stay as near the real world as possible)
4. The presidency should be non-party political: parliament (senate, etc) can stay that way, but the head of state should be above that sort of thing.  Maybe an election for president would be a good thing, with the top few candidates from the presidency training college presenting a manifesto which the public can vote on.

I could carry on with this sort of thing for hours, if not days...

Anybody else have any Utopian ideals?

Phil

Subject: Re: Question for our British friends here...

Written By: kayhepburn on 06/18/03 at 07:48 a.m.

I am English and have no real interest in the Royal family as  a whole, they are boring, out of touch, distant figures.
Princes William and Harry are both gorgeous and seem very down to earth, but I feel so sorry for them as they will never be free through no fault of their own.
As William's 21st birthday approaches  the media frenzy is already beginning here.  He has been on the front of at least one newspaper a day for the past week.

Subject: Re: Question for our British friends here...

Written By: Bobby on 06/18/03 at 08:11 a.m.

I feel that I need to ask this question - good or pointless.

'Would removing the queen be a benefit to Britain's economy?'

This is not about being rhetorical or witty. I would like someone to help me come to a conclusion about this. Me at the moment I'm inclined to say that it would - BUT I'M WILLING TO CHANGE MY OPINION.  ;D

Subject: Re: Question for our British friends here...

Written By: FussBudgetVanPelt on 06/20/03 at 06:31 a.m.


Quoting:   So does Australia, in fact. Symbolic or not, the vote to retain the Queen makes monkeys of the lot of them.
End Quote



I know you were tongue in cheek, Davester, so I will respond in kind !

Not this Monkey !  I didn't vote for it.  Thing is it wasn't simply (the referendum on the issue that is) worded as a question requiring a yes or no answer.  

It was written in such a way it was impossible to tell whether you were saying you did or didn't want to retain those links.

A cynic might say that was done deliberately, but of course I wouldn't say that though  ::) ::) ::) ;D ;D ;D

Subject: Re: Question for our British friends here...

Written By: Goreripper on 06/20/03 at 03:41 p.m.


Quoting:
Not this Monkey !  I didn't vote for it.  Thing is it wasn't simply (the referendum on the issue that is) worded as a question requiring a yes or no answer.  

It was written in such a way it was impossible to tell whether you were saying you did or didn't want to retain those links.

A cynic might say that was done deliberately, but of course I wouldn't say that though  ::) ::) ::) ;D ;D ;D
End Quote



It wouldn't be just cynics who'd say it Fuss!

So far as I can remember the question, it didn't even ask if you wanted Australia to become a Republic! Instead, it was something like:

"Do you want Australia to have a President selected by a two-thirds majority vote of both houses of Parliament? Yes or No."

All they needed to ask was: "Do you think Australia should become a Republic? Yes or No." But of course, if they'd asked that, the Republicans would have won by an 85/15 majority and the PM's Royalist friends would have gone crying into their beers chardonnays.


Subject: Re: Question for our British friends here...

Written By: FussBudgetVanPelt on 06/21/03 at 06:28 a.m.

Oh yeah !  That was it !  Thanks Gore...

What a shonk huh ?  >:( :o ::) ::) ::)

Subject: Re: Question for our British friends here...

Written By: FussBudgetVanPelt on 06/21/03 at 06:30 a.m.


Quoting:Sure, Tao, you be embarrassed at us having a monarchy still, but would you really rather have had President Thatcher?End Quote



Eek !  :o

PM Thatcher was scary enough, and I lived as far away as one could from her  ::)   :P :P ;D

Subject: Re: Question for our British friends here...

Written By: philbo_baggins on 06/23/03 at 05:40 a.m.


Quoting:
"Do you want Australia to have a President selected by a two-thirds majority vote of both houses of Parliament? Yes or No."

All they needed to ask was: "Do you think Australia should become a Republic? Yes or No." But of course, if they'd asked that, the Republicans would have won by an 85/15 majority and the PM's Royalist friends would have gone crying into their beers chardonnays.
End Quote


IIRC, hadn't they already come up with that ridiculous electoral college idea for presidential elections? - rather like Woy Jenkins' proposals for electoral reform over here, too strained ever to be viable - so that what was being voted for was either anachronistic or bollocks, and the vote went with the safer, if outdated, option.  Ted Heath did something similar over here with regard to joining the Common Market (what is now the EU) - public opinion was evenly split, so he announced our entry into the thing, then held a referendum on whether we should *stay* in - and won by a whisker.

Phil

Subject: Re: Question for our British friends here...

Written By: mrgazpacho on 06/23/03 at 05:55 p.m.

Yay for inertia!  :P

Subject: Re: Question for our British friends here...

Written By: Goreripper on 06/24/03 at 05:50 p.m.


Quoting:

IIRC, hadn't they already come up with that ridiculous electoral college idea for presidential elections? - rather like Woy Jenkins' proposals for electoral reform over here, too strained ever to be viable - so that what was being voted for was either anachronistic or bollocks, and the vote went with the safer, if outdated, option.  End Quote



Yes you're right. They spent billions on a Republican forum to establish the best "model" for the change, came up with something that was nothing more than a replacement for the Governor General, and then asked us if we wanted to vote for it.